Can you participate to a listening test?

[bibo01]

Hoping I don't breach any laws:

 

http://lynx.imada.sdu.dk/~petersk/A.wav

http://lynx.imada.sdu.dk/~petersk/B.wav

 

They are 100% clean WAV files, no malicious code, nothing to unpack

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

Thanks Peter

[PeterSt]

Ahum, I made a mistake;

 

I tend to write things down during comparisons like this, which I didn't do this time. And today I suddenly remembered a most important subject which already (kind of in advance) made me chose for A explicitly. Btw, I thought of it when I read this just now :

 

He said: ‘Well, every time you were listening to amp A you listened to the song all the way through. Every time you listened to amp B you signaled to change amp after a minute or so.’” .

 

So ... What I now recall is that I couldn't keep my attention to track B and instead I started thinking about women or sex or something. Haha.

Anyway, this definitely made me chose for A.

 

Apologies,

Peter

[bibo01]

Now it is:

 

I: 1

nIA: 1

nIB: 3

 

However, PeterSt, I am not sure this is fare...you know why :-/

[ecwl]

I don't get it. So, this *is* classical I'd say, and it even sounds very nice (to me).

 

 

 

But maybe you ended up with some Black Sabbath ?

 

This is hilarious. I needed something humorous since my desktop SSD crashed again this morning. Who knew SSDs can be unreliable.

 

Anyway, the classical piece is from the beginning of Mahler Symphony No. 6. I have a poorly recorded 1988 performance with Leornard Bernstein conducting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. DG was using their new DDD technology for recording and mastering to CDs. It was supposed to be one of the many reasons why CDs sounded worse than vinyl. But the pace and rhythm that Bernstein took the piece was still far more interesting than the 24/96 A/B segments we had to listen to. I'd compare the A/B files to being forced to listen to a bad cover of your favorite song, perhaps one from Black Sabbath? maybe covered by Britney Spears?

 

And the Bernstein performance is not really considered one of the best of Mahler 6. The Gramophone Classical Music Guide recommended performances by Gergiev, Abbado, Karajan, etc. Although sometimes their recommendations are hit-and-miss. I'd be curious when this is over which recording this is so that I can avoid it in the future. Hope bibo01 provides the info.

[manisandher]

Well certainly nI.

 

But as to which is 'better'... well, this is more difficult. This is how I'm hearing things:

 

1 - Sounds more analogue - like a very clean vinyl recording. Harmonically richer. But also less focused. Easier to listen to and focus on the music.

 

2 - Sounds more digital - like a CD rip. Cleaner. But more edgy. [superficially?] more detailed.

 

So, I'd go with 1 personally... just because it's easier on the ears.

 

(Played back on my DSD system with HQPlayer set to: poly-sinc-mp/NS9/192000/PCM.)

 

Mani.

[bibo01]

Now it is:

 

I: 1

nIA: 2

nIB: 3

 

 

@ ecwl

I will let you know

[PeterSt]

Now it is:

 

I: 1

nIA: 1

nIB: 3

 

However, PeterSt, I am not sure this is fare...you know why :-/

 

It 100% is, or otherwise there would be no fun in this for myself. Also see your PM (by now).

 

For me, but more so for you, it is way more interesting to see what Mani made of it. And it doesn't tell a d*mn thing about whether he is right or wrong. Not to me, haha. Riddles ...

Just as that my own change doesn't tell much to me. My reason is intuitive and a derival of what unconsciously should be true and worth more (to myself). And to be clear, what I said earlier about my judgements still counts. However, if A is the best track (if there is a best in order anyway here) then it will prove to myself how dangerous it is to do it consciously - which I did at first. And please keep in mind : I never listened again. There was only something burried in my memory which I value more than "stupid A-B" (which as I said, I can't do well).

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

PS: I really like to encourage more to participate; I am not the owner of this subject, but you could be sorry afterwards if you didn't attempt it. Really.

[ringenesherre]

PS: I really like to encourage more to participate; I am not the owner of this subject, but you could be sorry afterwards if you didn't attempt it. Really.

 

I second this encouragement. Come on guys, help out here!

 

Cheers,

Peter

[Alkan]

Both A and B lacks holographic image and sound layers - I cannot tell if is the recording or the encoding. But this is not the thread's question, so my choice goes to "I".

Dalton.

[bibo01]

So now we are at:

 

I: 2

nIA: 2

nIB: 3

[Brian A]

Thanks for making the files direct downloads. Do'ed it.

 

That was really tough. Didn't like the dynamics of either actually; both seemed like peaks pooped out before they should have; a kind of compression or something.

 

Anyhoo, committment time ...

 

For the longest time, on my system to my ears, I couldn't hear a difference. Then B slowly sound it like it had a few (extremely minor) details that A didn't seem to have. I doubt myself and wonder if an expectation bias was just setting in.

 

So, using your secret codes, I say nIB.

[bibo01]

So now we are at:

 

I: 2

nIA: 2

nIB: 4

[new_media]

Initially I thought A sounded a little fuller, but then I opened both in QuickTime and set them playing simultaneously so I could quickly switch back and forth. I couldn't convince myself that I heard any difference, so I'm going with I.

[bibo01]

So now we are at:

 

I: 3

nIA: 2

nIB: 4

 

 

In Italy 31 people tested the files in just over a week-end...come on guys, let's show what CA forum is made of! :-)

 

Otherwise, tell me and I can call it off.

[ESL]

In Italy 31 people tested the files in just over a week-end...come on guys, let's show what CA forum is made of! :-)

 

Ok then, I prefer A (ref. the 2 wav files above). Overall, it felt more like listening to musicians than a recording, although I didn't like the recording. Some of the passages were, for me, not distinguishable between A & B.

 

Oddly, because of an error on my part, if they are played inverted, I prefer more of B than A. As they are, though: A.

 

On the edge of my seat......

 

Martin

[bibo01]

So now we are at:

 

I: 3

nIA: 3

nIB: 4

[PeterM]

I hear no differences.

 

Peter

 

MacBookPro/AudirvanaPlus->Apogee MiniDac -> Stax SRM-007tII/Stax SR-009

[souptin]

Can't hear any difference between the two files.

But thanks for taking the time to prepare and upload the test.

 

ps, just for reference, my gear is low end compared to many CA folks - Macboo Pro, Apogee Duet with Grado SR125s. I used an eval copy of Amarra for listening. I also did a couple of objective tests just in case you were pulling a sneaky (all due respect to the ongoing discussions about seemingly indentical files sounding different) but I'll keep quiet about them until the big reveal.

[ringenesherre]

Can't hear any difference between the two files.

But thanks for taking the time to prepare and upload the test.

 

ps, just for reference, my gear is low end compared to many CA folks - Macboo Pro, Apogee Duet with Grado SR125s. I used an eval copy of Amarra for listening. I also did a couple of objective tests just in case you were pulling a sneaky (all due respect to the ongoing discussions about seemingly indentical files sounding different) but I'll keep quiet about them until the big reveal.

 

If you are interested, we can discuss the results of those tests in PM. I'd be delighted to tell you my discoveries and would be interested if I missed something significant

 

Cheers,

Peter

[MJN]

On headphones (Senn HD600) I got to the point that I could differentiate the 2 tracks 80% of the time w/o looking, but had a hard time picking a favorite.

On speakers, I prefer B to A. A sound as if it was recorded from the front row with 2 dimensional sound between speakers and forward at times. B sounds like was recorded from a distance and the instruments seem to sit in 3D space from the speakers back. More "air". But I have old ears.

 

Win7>JRMC>USB DAC>AES DJH tube pre>Cary Audio CAD572SEII tube amps>Soliloquy 5.3 speakers

[bibo01]

So now we are at:

 

I: 5

nIA: 3

nIB: 5

 

If you care to wait a bit, everything will soon be reaveld.

-------------------------

 

@MJN

I put you down for "nIB"

 

-------------------------

 

Thanks to Tony Lauck from AA, I can tell you that the track is the start of the first movement of Mahler's 6th Symphony on the Acousence label. He also recommends the 192/24 version.

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-gustav-mahler--symphonie-no--6.aspx

[sandyk]

I was one of the first to DL the files, but kept quiet because I have some views that upset the EEs, and I wanted to see what the others reported.

Yes, I do hear a difference, but it could very well be a different choice with more revealing material.

Eventually I found this view something that I am in 100% agreement with.

"5 cents

Both A and B lacks holographic image and sound layers - I cannot tell if is the recording or the encoding. But this is not the thread's question, so my choice goes to "I".

Dalton. "

 

I also listened to the A and B files, and although I thought they were a little better, they still sounded more like very mediocre 16/44.1. to me. Examination in Sound Forge 9 reveals they are sourced from Vinyl with quite a high level of Wow and Flutter,

and that although SUPPOSEDLY 24/ 96, the contents , judging by the digital looking waveforms suggest something perhaps more like MP3 ? ( I'm no expert !!).

I abhor attempts to try and discredit the High Resolution mediums, and damage reputable companies like HD Tracks and the Chesky Brothers.It will also damage an already struggling Industry.

I sincerely apologise if I am incorrect about the purpose behind these comparison files.

I can provide screen grabs of the SF9 waveforms if requested.

If Admin feels that I am spoiling an otherwise "harmless game" by posting this, I have no problems with him deleting my post.

Alex

[bibo01]

I was one of the first to DL the files, but kept quiet because I have some views that upset the EEs, and I wanted to see what the others reported.

Yes, I do hear a difference, but it could very well be a different choice with more revealing material.

Eventually I found this view something that I am in 100% agreement with.

"5 cents

Both A and B lacks holographic image and sound layers - I cannot tell if is the recording or the encoding. But this is not the thread's question, so my choice goes to "I".

Dalton. "

 

I also listened to the A and B files, and although I thought they were a little better, they still sounded more like very mediocre 16/44.1. to me. Examination in Sound Forge 9 reveals they are sourced from Vinyl with quite a high level of Wow and Flutter,

and that although SUPPOSEDLY 24/ 96, the contents , judging by the digital looking waveforms suggest something perhaps more like MP3 ? ( I'm no expert !!).

I abhor attempts to try and discredit the High Resolution mediums, and damage reputable companies like HD Tracks and the Chesky Brothers.It will also damage an already struggling Industry.

I sincerely apologise if I am incorrect about the purpose behind these comparison files.

I can provide screen grabs of the SF9 waveforms if requested.

If Admin feels that I am spoiling an otherwise "harmless game" by posting this, I have no problems with him deleting my post.

Alex

Hi Alex,

 

I already replied to you in PVT.

I can assure that there is no attempt to discredit HR. So much so that the original test was done "in the open", without concealing what it was done. The intent is rather different and simple.

BTW, I agree that there is some analog in there.

 

Gianluca

[bibo01]

Before the thread begins to deteriorate, let's put an end to the listening test.

 

Firstly, I must tell you about the history of this listening test (btw, I hope to be using the right English terms throughout).

 

The initial concept was to take a 24/96 file (file A), apply triangular dither (no noise shaping) and create a new file from it (file B). The two files are obviously different, although minutely, but could such differences be heard?! The listening test was born!

 

It took place in the open air in a small audio forum and then trasferred to a larger audience on another forum as well. So no trick was involved. Later on, it was proposed to ComputerAudiophile audience. The rest is history! :-)

 

To be honest such test does not pretend to be a scientific test at all. How coul it be?! Too many different systems and situations are involved. This is just a field one. However, normally people have tried to listen at the 2 files in their systems, in their own best way, possibly playing them at random.

 

In Italy the response was:

Identical = 11;

non-Identical = 20.

Preference was almost equal between A and B.

 

Here on CA, adding one contribution from Audio Asylum, we have:

I - 5;

nIA - 4:

nIB - 5.

 

So, it can be said that the test, on both sides of the pond, outlines a similar result. Furthermore, although totally subjective, the preference between A and B is also rather interesting.

However, let's keep our focus on the differences between the 2 files which is the main issue at hand.

 

Let's go back to this "dither thing". Applying dither is adding noise to the signal which (in LSB units) will change from time to time of +1 and -1.

So, can these differences be heard? Promptly many people said "no, impossible".

Many people analized the 2 files with various "common" software - like SoundForge, Nuendo, Wavelab, AudioDiffMaker...- by putting one file in antiphase with the other. Some could not find differences at -90dB, others found dither at -139dB, others at -174dB.

 

Most of those users hastily decreed that such differences could not be heard at such a low level and therefore there were psycoaucustic reasons for differences to be perceived by people. At the same time, it must be said that many users who "perceived" differences were extremely confident of their judgement on the listening experience and method applied. Therefore, a full investigation was required. We wanted to "see" those differences, how big they are and how they influence the sound if any.

 

The measurements between the two files - I thank Roberto Pupella for the contribution - were in depth and regarded the following:

- DC component value

- AC rms value

- dither localization

- dither measurement

- projection HDP (Harmonics Dist. Point) of dither on modulator.

 

By using The full version of Labview and PXI modules, the file was opened and a vector filled with data, then connected to a DAC (math model-64bit). Clocks were derived from the info inside each WAVE file.

Overlay Visualization betwen A-B shows zero differences up to 1mV/Div and it refers to the same segment of time visualized on the strip. So, for now, everything is as aspected.

 

 

On this picture there is data on files reading. The only difference (bigger on Left ch) is the Dc component. BTW, visualized signal has amplified scale (5mV/Div).

 

 

These are the signals that make the apparently asymmetric reading of DC component. Therefore, A-B signals have no offset difference, as it can be seen from overlay - indeed, it is absolutely possible to superimpose them.

What it changes because of those "needles" is the harmonic content, which is particularly influenced by the unbalanced presence of those needles. That is, the section with the most fragmented presence becomes more responsible for harmonic changes, given the difference in that part (one needle = one sample).

 

 

(A-B file was cut at 28sec. to make things easier and because at the beginning there are only low frequencies) This is a visualization of a segment between 10K-18K (in accordance with the DAC). As it can be seen, because of intermodulating lows, signal starts high to then "sit down" on -174dB.

Activity at low level (red trace) follows the low level values which cannot be heard. Instead, in an area which is prefectly audible of the red trace, from this simple measurement activity above (energy) already shows that harmonic content has changed (not by coincidence, it's on the highs).

Differences start at 6Khz and stop at 46Khz.

 

 

This is the projection of dither signal present in file B.

Yellow dots are exactly where signal has received an irregular deformation (non linear). Yellow line at zero position is made by dither parts with original amplitude which, being out of sync with sampling, have not become integral part of it. That is, modulator values are not added nor subtracted.

 

 

Employing test equipment which can measure with a repeated precision of 1/million unit of difference, two further types of spectral differences can be found:

 

- direct: difference in file-B of +0,1dB and +0,3db according to musical instrument content;

 

- indirect: caused by polarity changes in file-B between L/R ch compared to file-A, in the range of +0,4 and +1,6dB (for spectral phase sum) on the frequency spectrum between 18K-48K and 100Hz-500Hz.

 

Finally, we can claim that those differences in harmonic content can be heard, depending on playback chain, and they derive from phase polarity changes betwen the two channels, which makes the "sum" of our stereo listening.

 

As far as listeners are concerned, the ability to discern differences during a listening test, however, can vary immensely - each person, circumstances, equipment, mood... In the end there is no real winner - that was not my intent - but just food for thought.

 

I thank everybody for taking part to the test and I hope you enjoyed it!

[sandyk]

My apologies for misjudging your motives here.

Attached is a screen grab from Sound Forge 9. Some of the Wow and Flutter can be seen too.

Regards

Alex

 

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/tracka.jpg/'><img'>http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/tracka.jpg/'><img src='http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2201/tracka.jpg' border='0'/></a>

 

Uploaded with <a target='_blank' href='http://imageshack.us'>ImageShack.us</a>

 

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/tracka.jpg/